Barbee v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William v. Gallo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Alan Eugene Barbee moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against the Commissioner of Social Security. The Court granted the IFP motion after finding that Plaintiff demonstrated an inability to pay and that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Granted“The motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and the screening requirements of § 1915(e). The order recites specific financial facts (income of $959.49, no assets, expenses of $959.49) that support a finding of inability to pay. Regarding the screening requirement, the court applied the correct standard for Social Security appeals, noting that a complaint must set forth specific points of error rather than merely stating the decision was wrong. The court found that the complaint met this 'minimal' standard by assigning specific points of error to the ALJ. While the court noted the complaint 'barely' satisfied the standard, it did not dismiss it, which is a permissible exercise of discretion given the complaint was not frivolous or malicious. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for the IFP motion and the mandatory screening requirement under § 1915(e). It accurately cites Ninth Circuit precedent (Lopez, Calhoun) and district court precedent (Hoagland, Schwei) to establish the specific pleading standards for Social Security cases, which require more than a bare assertion of error. The court applied these standards to the specific facts of the complaint (finding specific points of error were assigned) and reached a defensible conclusion. The reliance on unpublished district court opinions (Hoagland, Schwei) is common in this context but less authoritative than circuit precedent; however, the principles align with the broader Ninth Circuit framework established in Lopez.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALAN EUGENE BARBEE, Case No.: 21-CV-300-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 [Doc. No. 2.] Defendant. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff files for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the Complaint. (Doc. No. 2.) 20 The Court reviews Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), as required when a 21 plaintiff files a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds that the Complaint 22 sufficiently states a claim for relief and GRANTS the IFP motion. 23 I. MOTION FOR IFP 24 Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. All parties instituting any 25 civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application 26 for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action 27 may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff is 28 granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must be 2 accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes 3 a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security. CivLR 4 3.2.a. 5 Plaintiff claims income consisting of $959.49 per month in disability payments. 6 Plaintiff claims no salary or other income source. He has not been employed within the 7 past twelve months and has no assets. Plaintiff claims $959.49 in expenses. In light of 8 Plaintiff’s financial circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently shown an 9 inability to pay the filing fee. 10 II. SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 11 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when reviewing an IFP motion, the Court must rule 12 on its own motion to dismiss before the complaint is served. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 13 1127 (9th Cir. 2000). (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to 14 dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”) The Court must dismiss 15 the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be 16 granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (noting 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) is “not limited to prisoners”); Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 19 (“[§] 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an [IFP] complaint 20 that fails to state a claim.”). 21 Social security appeals are not exempt from the § 1915(e) screening requirement. 22 Hoagland v. Astrue, No. 12CV973-SMS, 2012 WL 2521753, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 23 2012); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1129 (“section 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis 24 complaints.”). “Every plaintiff appealing an adverse decision of the Commissioner believes 25 that the Commissioner was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 2521753, at *3. “A complaint 26 merely stating that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong is plainly insufficient to satisfy 27 a plaintiff’s pleading requirement.” Schwei v. Colvin, No. 15CV1086-JCM-NJK, 2015 WL 28 3630961, at *2 (D. Nev. June 9, 2015). Instead, “[a] complaint appealing the 1 ||Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits must set forth a brief statement of facts setting 2 ||forth the reasons why the Commissioner’s decision was wrong.” Hoagland, 2012 WL 3 || 2521753, at *2 (collecting cases) (emphasis added). 4 Based on the Court’s review of the Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has 5 sufficiently (though barely) satisfied the minimal pleading standards above by stating 6 || specific points of error assigned to the ALJ. (See Doc. No. 1 4] 9(a)-(b).) 7 I. CONCLUSION 8 The motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ||DATED: February 22, 2021 | Se 12 Hon. William V. Gallo 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28